Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated It Comes At Night (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
There are some things that are truly frightening. For some, it could be ghosts while others fear zombies. There are many things that concern us and even keep us awake at night. With It Comes At Night, audiences are faced with one of the greatest fears that man has: the unknown.
The film features Paul (Joel Edgerton) a father and husband who is seeking to keep his family safe in the wilderness from unknown threats. He and his family are uncertain of what has taken place. They are not sure if the population has become victims to terrorism, disease, or some sort of supernatural occurrence. Paranoia builds as a stranger arrives on their land. What are his intentions? Can they trust each other long enough to survive? Will they outlast whatever has consumed countless others?
The film is haunting and will have its audience trying to guess and discover what exactly is taking place. The film is reminiscent of The Village, The Happening, and other movies that rely on ambiguity. For some films, the mystery may be the downfall as it leads nowhere. With It Comes At Night, the filmmakers allow for reality to seep into the lives that viewers are witnessing on the screen. For this film, the ambiguity allows for the audience to question how they would behave or adapt in a seemingly post-apocalyptic environment. We like to think that we know, but we can never be sure. This comes through with the actions of each of the characters. They are alone and afraid.
The film is deep in its approach to what the world would look like should calamity approach. People would become distrustful, fight, turn on each other, kill without thinking, and eventually sink into the realization that they don’t know what to do. It Comes at Night allows for the reality of horror to be exposed. It is not knowing how to face a certain danger, it is about having to come to terms with the unknown.
The film features Paul (Joel Edgerton) a father and husband who is seeking to keep his family safe in the wilderness from unknown threats. He and his family are uncertain of what has taken place. They are not sure if the population has become victims to terrorism, disease, or some sort of supernatural occurrence. Paranoia builds as a stranger arrives on their land. What are his intentions? Can they trust each other long enough to survive? Will they outlast whatever has consumed countless others?
The film is haunting and will have its audience trying to guess and discover what exactly is taking place. The film is reminiscent of The Village, The Happening, and other movies that rely on ambiguity. For some films, the mystery may be the downfall as it leads nowhere. With It Comes At Night, the filmmakers allow for reality to seep into the lives that viewers are witnessing on the screen. For this film, the ambiguity allows for the audience to question how they would behave or adapt in a seemingly post-apocalyptic environment. We like to think that we know, but we can never be sure. This comes through with the actions of each of the characters. They are alone and afraid.
The film is deep in its approach to what the world would look like should calamity approach. People would become distrustful, fight, turn on each other, kill without thinking, and eventually sink into the realization that they don’t know what to do. It Comes at Night allows for the reality of horror to be exposed. It is not knowing how to face a certain danger, it is about having to come to terms with the unknown.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Aug 28, 2019 (Updated Oct 25, 2019)
Another fantastic entry into Tarantino's legacy
If there's one thing that springs to mind after watching Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, is that's it's not particularly user friendly, it's not easily consumed.
It's a loooong film (perhaps a little too long), and I feel that even some proper Tarantino fans may struggle to get along with it.
The film feels like a full on love letter to Hollywood during the late 60s, and Tarantino's passion for this period is obvious.
The audience are spoiled with gorgeous shots throughout, set to a backdrop of great music (as per usual).
The cast are fantastic - I've mentioned before on here that I'm an unashamed Brad Pitt fanboy, and nothing here changes that. Leonardo DiCaprio is also great (just as he was in Django Unchained) as the two of them stick by each other as Rick Dalton's (DiCaprio) acting career starts to waver.
Living just up the road from Rick are Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate (played by a hugely charming Margot Robbie).
As the film progresses, I found myself wondering what story was trying to be told, but it does all tie up in a very Tarantino way. It's pretty glorious (no spoilers here).
The plot certainly benefits from the viewer having prior knowledge to the horrific Manson family/Tate murder.
The final 20 minutes is where things ramp up, after a very slow burning 2 hours... and after Tarantino's last 3 movies, which I found more action heavy than some of his early work, it's a different approach, and a reason why I think some people may struggle with it.
The pacing is, weirdly, most akin to Death Proof - an extremely dialogue heavy movie with a crazy final act.
But the huge amount of dialogue we're subjected to is pretty much perfect. It's a real treat if you have the patience.
Once Upon a Time... can proudly stand shoulder to shoulder with the rest of Tarantino's portfolio.
It's a loooong film (perhaps a little too long), and I feel that even some proper Tarantino fans may struggle to get along with it.
The film feels like a full on love letter to Hollywood during the late 60s, and Tarantino's passion for this period is obvious.
The audience are spoiled with gorgeous shots throughout, set to a backdrop of great music (as per usual).
The cast are fantastic - I've mentioned before on here that I'm an unashamed Brad Pitt fanboy, and nothing here changes that. Leonardo DiCaprio is also great (just as he was in Django Unchained) as the two of them stick by each other as Rick Dalton's (DiCaprio) acting career starts to waver.
Living just up the road from Rick are Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate (played by a hugely charming Margot Robbie).
As the film progresses, I found myself wondering what story was trying to be told, but it does all tie up in a very Tarantino way. It's pretty glorious (no spoilers here).
The plot certainly benefits from the viewer having prior knowledge to the horrific Manson family/Tate murder.
The final 20 minutes is where things ramp up, after a very slow burning 2 hours... and after Tarantino's last 3 movies, which I found more action heavy than some of his early work, it's a different approach, and a reason why I think some people may struggle with it.
The pacing is, weirdly, most akin to Death Proof - an extremely dialogue heavy movie with a crazy final act.
But the huge amount of dialogue we're subjected to is pretty much perfect. It's a real treat if you have the patience.
Once Upon a Time... can proudly stand shoulder to shoulder with the rest of Tarantino's portfolio.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Aug 16, 2020
1917 is a remarkable film through and through, and I can't praise it enough.
The cast, the cinematography, the set pieces, the music score are all outstanding.
The plot revolves around Lance Corporals Schofield (George McKay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) embarking on a seemingly impossible mission across no man's land in Northern France, deep into enemy territory to deliver a message to a fellow regiment, with the aim of preventing them from walking into a trap and potentially losing 1600 soldiers.
The two lead actors are fantastic, portraying two soldiers leaning on each other to achieve their goal.
The journey that takes place is tough and harrowing at times. There's a point about half way through the movie where the pace just doesn't slow down once. It's extremely intense, and bolstered infinitely by the shooting style.
The film is shot in a way that gives the viewer the impression of a one take movie. It's edited together so well that it appears seamless, and allows for some truly breathtaking moments, and never lets you break away from events unfolding. It caught my attention immediately and never lost it for one second.
This method allows for a very stylish looking experience, but it's a kind of style that never detracts or takes away from the horror of war. It's a perfect combination, ensuring that scenes of action feel relentless, whilst sadder moments are suitably poignant and perfectly executed. The emotional beats in 1917 are something else and took me by surprise. I have no shame in saying that I was fighting back tears a couple of times.
By the times the credits rolled, I was just sat in stunned silence, something that has only happened to me a few times before when it comes to movies.
1917 is pretty much perfect. A great war film, a great drama, and en effective exploration of what friendship and duty really mean.
Make the time to watch it if you haven't already!
The cast, the cinematography, the set pieces, the music score are all outstanding.
The plot revolves around Lance Corporals Schofield (George McKay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) embarking on a seemingly impossible mission across no man's land in Northern France, deep into enemy territory to deliver a message to a fellow regiment, with the aim of preventing them from walking into a trap and potentially losing 1600 soldiers.
The two lead actors are fantastic, portraying two soldiers leaning on each other to achieve their goal.
The journey that takes place is tough and harrowing at times. There's a point about half way through the movie where the pace just doesn't slow down once. It's extremely intense, and bolstered infinitely by the shooting style.
The film is shot in a way that gives the viewer the impression of a one take movie. It's edited together so well that it appears seamless, and allows for some truly breathtaking moments, and never lets you break away from events unfolding. It caught my attention immediately and never lost it for one second.
This method allows for a very stylish looking experience, but it's a kind of style that never detracts or takes away from the horror of war. It's a perfect combination, ensuring that scenes of action feel relentless, whilst sadder moments are suitably poignant and perfectly executed. The emotional beats in 1917 are something else and took me by surprise. I have no shame in saying that I was fighting back tears a couple of times.
By the times the credits rolled, I was just sat in stunned silence, something that has only happened to me a few times before when it comes to movies.
1917 is pretty much perfect. A great war film, a great drama, and en effective exploration of what friendship and duty really mean.
Make the time to watch it if you haven't already!
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Hercules (1997) in Movies
Sep 5, 2020
Great Combo of Action and Hilarity
Disney’s animated retelling of the classic story of the Greek demi-god. The fun spin that was put on it just happens to make it my favorite. You can’t help but have a good time while watching Disney’s Hercules.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Hercules is beautiful from a visual standpoint. I love the contrast of bright colors against dark backgrounds. My favorite scene is when Hercules is battling the hydra in the rain while flying on his pegasus. It’s so grand in scale as he soars in and out of the dozens of heads. Oh, and I haven’t even touched on the beauty of Hades. It’s gorgeous even in its weird creepiness. So much attention to detail that it’s hard not to appreciate.
Conflict: 9
Entertainment Value: 9
From the opening scene where the awesome divas are singing the setup, I knew I was going to be watching something original and new. With a combo of action-packed sequences and a number of hilarious moments from a great cast, I was invested in the movie from beginning to end. It’s a damn good ride.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
Hercules moves extremely efficiently through its story which I find some stories hard to do when singing is involved. There is very little lingering if any as scenes get their point across and you’re off to the next thing. I respect films that can do that as I know a number of movies that overstay their welcome.
Plot: 8
Resolution: 8
Overall: 92
Not only does it have action and comedy, but there is also a love story in true Disney fashion within Hercules. And it all works. I do wish that they would have jumped into Hercules’ hero aspect a smidge earlier, but overall I think the movie is fantastic. Great job yet again by Disney.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Hercules is beautiful from a visual standpoint. I love the contrast of bright colors against dark backgrounds. My favorite scene is when Hercules is battling the hydra in the rain while flying on his pegasus. It’s so grand in scale as he soars in and out of the dozens of heads. Oh, and I haven’t even touched on the beauty of Hades. It’s gorgeous even in its weird creepiness. So much attention to detail that it’s hard not to appreciate.
Conflict: 9
Entertainment Value: 9
From the opening scene where the awesome divas are singing the setup, I knew I was going to be watching something original and new. With a combo of action-packed sequences and a number of hilarious moments from a great cast, I was invested in the movie from beginning to end. It’s a damn good ride.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
Hercules moves extremely efficiently through its story which I find some stories hard to do when singing is involved. There is very little lingering if any as scenes get their point across and you’re off to the next thing. I respect films that can do that as I know a number of movies that overstay their welcome.
Plot: 8
Resolution: 8
Overall: 92
Not only does it have action and comedy, but there is also a love story in true Disney fashion within Hercules. And it all works. I do wish that they would have jumped into Hercules’ hero aspect a smidge earlier, but overall I think the movie is fantastic. Great job yet again by Disney.
Sam (228 KP) rated The Willoughbys (2020) in Movies
May 13, 2020
Character development (or not) (3 more)
Good messages
Cute music
Adorable storyline
Absolutely Adorable
This film takes hard and upsetting topics, addressing them in a light-er tones that can be understood by children. This film is a heartwarming tale about the trust meaning of family and what it really means to choose your family. At the end (no spoilers!) there is a single moment where I began to worry that it would be one of THOSE movies and trust me you'll know it when you see it. I'll give you a hint and say it involves es both the parents and kids but that's all I'm saying!
The reason I enjoyed this film so much definitely has to do with how they chose to address the topics of social services and what it means to put a child into the system. They also do this in such a way that a child can understand and clearly see that there's something not right with how they go about things. However, despite this, they do not make 'orphan services' as it's called in the film, the bad guy. Rather they add a slightly different tone, hinting that they care and that their coldness is a result of trying to be apart of the working system. They're not the 'problem' in the film but simply another aspect within the film pushing the real problem. The system is broken, a system set up to help and keep children safe (they even mention it in film), is instead breaking up families for no other reason than minimal circumstance and (not sure if people caught this one) NO EVIDENCE.
I fear I'm starting to hint around spoilers so I'll say no more but the film is worth a look. Even if you don't necessarily like kid films the ideas in this film on family and 'the system' is truly something to marvel.
The reason I enjoyed this film so much definitely has to do with how they chose to address the topics of social services and what it means to put a child into the system. They also do this in such a way that a child can understand and clearly see that there's something not right with how they go about things. However, despite this, they do not make 'orphan services' as it's called in the film, the bad guy. Rather they add a slightly different tone, hinting that they care and that their coldness is a result of trying to be apart of the working system. They're not the 'problem' in the film but simply another aspect within the film pushing the real problem. The system is broken, a system set up to help and keep children safe (they even mention it in film), is instead breaking up families for no other reason than minimal circumstance and (not sure if people caught this one) NO EVIDENCE.
I fear I'm starting to hint around spoilers so I'll say no more but the film is worth a look. Even if you don't necessarily like kid films the ideas in this film on family and 'the system' is truly something to marvel.
Logan Eccles (135 KP) rated Brightburn (2019) in Movies
Oct 1, 2020 (Updated Oct 2, 2020)
A reimagination of Super-Man you diddnt know you needed
Contains spoilers, click to show
I am shocked by how many bad reviews this masterpiece has on here! The story, the filming, and the acting is outstanding. I love the idea of what if Super-Man was in the horror/suspenseful thriller instead of superhero/action. The comparison between the two stories is so good but it's still just different enough not to be dismissed as a bad rip off. A married couple on a farm finds a baby in a spaceship. Baby grows up and has superpowers. Now, this is where it gets different, the child develops psychopath type tendencies. Collecting pictures of organs, stalking, obsessing over guns, and excessive knowledge of animals.
This cast guys is so good and so right for this story. Elizabeth Banks and David Denman are a sweet convincing couple and bring the emotion and realities of if this happened. Elizabeths take on how a mother would respond to her child being a psychopathic killer is so raw and realistic. Throughout the movie, she reacts as if she knows but doesn't want to accept it and of course that's how a mother would react, mother knows Best but mother also protects. David Denmans take on a protective husband and suspicious father is so unique in storytelling. I mean of course he's going to let his sterile wife keep the baby from the woods but that's not his baby he don't know where that thing came from, but it makes his wife happy. Last but not least Jackson A. Dunn is bound to rise in stardom after his stellar performance.
Also, I usually don't like spoiling but watch the credits please cause it sets up a possible sequel and universe. Micheal Rooker pops up mid-credits as like a crazy youtube theorist guy. He starts going off about superpower being sightings and how they are out there killing people and terrorizing the world. It even shows a line up of potential super-powered horror villains for possible movies.
This cast guys is so good and so right for this story. Elizabeth Banks and David Denman are a sweet convincing couple and bring the emotion and realities of if this happened. Elizabeths take on how a mother would respond to her child being a psychopathic killer is so raw and realistic. Throughout the movie, she reacts as if she knows but doesn't want to accept it and of course that's how a mother would react, mother knows Best but mother also protects. David Denmans take on a protective husband and suspicious father is so unique in storytelling. I mean of course he's going to let his sterile wife keep the baby from the woods but that's not his baby he don't know where that thing came from, but it makes his wife happy. Last but not least Jackson A. Dunn is bound to rise in stardom after his stellar performance.
Also, I usually don't like spoiling but watch the credits please cause it sets up a possible sequel and universe. Micheal Rooker pops up mid-credits as like a crazy youtube theorist guy. He starts going off about superpower being sightings and how they are out there killing people and terrorizing the world. It even shows a line up of potential super-powered horror villains for possible movies.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Till Death (2021) in Movies
Oct 6, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
Till Death is a pretty middle-of-the-road thriller that somehow manages to both benefit and suffer from its no-nonsense approach to, well everything really. On the one hand, it's premise is an enticing one - after finding out about her affair, Emma's (Megan Fox) husband leads her out to a remote cabin under the false pretense of an anniversary getaway, handcuffs the two of them together by the wrists, and proceeds to shoot himself, leaving her attached to his dead body and fighting for her life when two hitmen come by to finish the job. This setup leads to a decent amount of tension, it's snowy setting exacerbating her survival conditions.
There aren't really any twists or turns to be had, and everything plays out fairly predictably, and quite honestly, it wouldn't work as well without the cast attached to it. Megan Fox has proved with vehicles such as Jennifer's Body that she is more than capable to lead a horror flick with style, and Till Death cements that fact. Her character is pretty badass, and Fox gives us a protagonist that's worth rooting for. On the flip side, the two hitmen-brother actors are great as well. Callan Mulvey in particular cuts an imposing figure as the movies main villain.
The narrative flirts with deeper context here and there but sadly never pulls the trigger. Mulvey's character is a person from Emma's past, having mugged her some years ago. The plot clearly spells out that there was motive behind this, but never explores this aspect, leaving a frustrating and unexplained story thread. The relationship between the brothers is interesting also, and at one point threatens to present a dilemma in who to side with, but again, it never actually goes there, and as such, reeks of a wasted opportunity for a far more interesting story than the one presented.
For what it is though, Till Death is a competent and entertaining enough thriller/horror to add to a spooky season watchlist
There aren't really any twists or turns to be had, and everything plays out fairly predictably, and quite honestly, it wouldn't work as well without the cast attached to it. Megan Fox has proved with vehicles such as Jennifer's Body that she is more than capable to lead a horror flick with style, and Till Death cements that fact. Her character is pretty badass, and Fox gives us a protagonist that's worth rooting for. On the flip side, the two hitmen-brother actors are great as well. Callan Mulvey in particular cuts an imposing figure as the movies main villain.
The narrative flirts with deeper context here and there but sadly never pulls the trigger. Mulvey's character is a person from Emma's past, having mugged her some years ago. The plot clearly spells out that there was motive behind this, but never explores this aspect, leaving a frustrating and unexplained story thread. The relationship between the brothers is interesting also, and at one point threatens to present a dilemma in who to side with, but again, it never actually goes there, and as such, reeks of a wasted opportunity for a far more interesting story than the one presented.
For what it is though, Till Death is a competent and entertaining enough thriller/horror to add to a spooky season watchlist
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2346 KP) rated It All Began with a Scream in Books
Nov 11, 2021 (Updated Nov 11, 2021)
Uneven History of the Scream Franchise
This book covers the history and production of all four movies released to date in the franchise. With new interviews and research into previously released articles, Padraic dives into what went into the creation of each movie in the franchise. He starts with the origins behind Kevin Williamson writing the first script and covers casting, production, releases, and everything in between for all of the films.
Despite my normal cozy mystery reads, I am obsessed with the Scream franchise, so as soon as I learned about this book, I knew I had to get it. I appreciated the interviews and research that went into this book. There were fewer bits of trivia I didn’t know about the original movie, but the sections on Screams 3 and 4 made me understand some of my issues with those films better. I did feel that the writing lacked a bit of passion that kept me out, and many of the quotes could have been cleaned up for clarity to make the reading better. I would have really appreciated it if the author had included a person’s full name and their position in the crew more than the first time he mentioned them. There are a handful of typos throughout the book, and that wouldn’t bother me, except that each time my alma mater was mentioned by name, it was listed as Santa Rosa high school instead of Santa Rosa High School. Yes, it’s silly, but it bugged me. I also take exception to the producer interviewed about that controversy saying not getting to film at the school was censorship. While there is much to be said on the subject (and both sides behaved poorly during the controversy), it was never censorship. Overall, the writing issues keep me from giving the book a full recommendation, but I am glad I read it.
Despite my normal cozy mystery reads, I am obsessed with the Scream franchise, so as soon as I learned about this book, I knew I had to get it. I appreciated the interviews and research that went into this book. There were fewer bits of trivia I didn’t know about the original movie, but the sections on Screams 3 and 4 made me understand some of my issues with those films better. I did feel that the writing lacked a bit of passion that kept me out, and many of the quotes could have been cleaned up for clarity to make the reading better. I would have really appreciated it if the author had included a person’s full name and their position in the crew more than the first time he mentioned them. There are a handful of typos throughout the book, and that wouldn’t bother me, except that each time my alma mater was mentioned by name, it was listed as Santa Rosa high school instead of Santa Rosa High School. Yes, it’s silly, but it bugged me. I also take exception to the producer interviewed about that controversy saying not getting to film at the school was censorship. While there is much to be said on the subject (and both sides behaved poorly during the controversy), it was never censorship. Overall, the writing issues keep me from giving the book a full recommendation, but I am glad I read it.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Apr 17, 2019 (Updated Apr 17, 2019)
The script (4 more)
The CGI
The editing
The performances
Everything else
Actual Hell
If the Hellboy 2019 movie has one thing going for it, it's that it's impressive. It is impressive in the sense that it actually made me question the futility of time and why I was wasting my short time on this earth watching this atrocious piece of trash. There were several times when I was watching the film that I actually couldn't bring myself to believe how bad what I was witnessing onscreen really was. This might be the worst film I have ever seen.
It has without a doubt taken the crown of the worst superhero movie ever made from Fan4stic and is downright insulting. I cannot believe that they chose to make this dogshit over another one with Ron Perlman and Del Toro. Almost every single aspect of this movie is garbage and there are hardly any redeeming features.
Let's talk about the main character, this movie's version of Hellboy. We all knew going in that David Harbour had some pretty big shoes to fill left by Perlman and in Harbour's defence, pretty much the only slightly positive aspect of this thing is the fact that you can tell that Harbour is doing the very best with the piss poor material he has been given to work with. Most of his lines are awful and the way that his character is written as a moaning, whiny bitch is actually insulting to the character. Also, the excessive makeup he is wearing means that he is hardly able to emote with his mouth. When he is talking, his mouth simply opens and closes like a puppet and it is painfully obvious that the dialogue has been dubbed in later and it's not even been done very well. The other slight positive in this movie is seeing Hellboy in his full demonic getup with long horns and donning the flaming crown and sword was pretty cool, unfortunately this is only a fleeting glimpse of coolness before we get right back to the crap.
The other memorable part of the Del Toro Hellboy movies was the endearing supporting cast, unfortunately they have been substituted with an insufferable lot of replacements. The actress playing Alice may give the worst performance that I have ever seen in a comic book movie, (and I saw Polar!) Every single line that she uttered was extremely cringe-worthy and poorly delivered. Daniel Dae Kim was almost as bad as Hellboy's other sidekick. Again, a lot of his lines were ADR'd in later and it is really shoddily done. Ian McShane plays Broom, the scientist that found Hellboy and adopted him and he is sleepwalking his way through this role for the sake of an easy paycheck. As is Milla Jovovich, she plays a stereotypical villainous witch and she does nothing here that we haven't seen her do before in other movies.
Over my years of watching almost every comic book movie that releases, I have seen my fair share of cheap, cartoony looking CGI, but this takes the cake. Almost every scene in the movie features some kind of CGI creature and they are all on a similar level of quality to an unfinished student project. One of the moments it really stood out was the giant fight, where we were subjected to not only one bad CGI giant, but three of them. The scene is also shot in broad daylight, which really does the bad CGI no favours. Not once, did anything in this movie look better than anything in the Del Toro movies which came out 10+ years ago.
I'm going to spoil something here, because seriously who gives a fuck at this point? The absolute worst part of CGI though in the entire movie, is undoubtedly during one of the final scenes in the movie where Ian McShane comes back to speak to Hellboy as a ghost. The CG in this scene is genuinely on par with the Rock's CG in in the Scorpion King. Yes, it really is that bad.
The soundtrack is so misused here also. The songs themselves that are featured are all half decent songs, but they do not work in the context of this film and they add absolutely nothing to the scenes that they are used in. The editing is also horrible, there were several times that I was reminded of the cheap editing in shows like Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
The last thing that I want to talk about is the tone and humour, (or lack of,) present throughout the film. The movie opens with a flashback scene showing King Arthur chopping up the witch. The scene is being narrated by Ian McShane and it is chock-full of diabolically awful dialogue and insufferably cheesy line delivery. Whilst watching it I thought, "Oh they are really hamming it up here and going for a really corny tone for these flashback scenes." I then swiftly came to the soul-crushing conclusion that no, this was how the next 2 hours of this movie was going to go. The awful sense of humour is actually comparable to that in a poor quality kids film, with gross out burp and kiss jokes to boot. What happened to the darker, more horror orientated tone that we were teased with when the movie was in pre-production? Any semblance of that is sorely lacking here and it is a shame because I would have quite liked to have seen that movie and there is a good chance that it would have been a lot better than this dumpster fire.
Overall, please don't see this unless you hate yourself. It is two hours of your life that would be better spent doing literally anything else. At the end it has the audacity to tease a sequel which, (if there is a God,) will never happen.
It has without a doubt taken the crown of the worst superhero movie ever made from Fan4stic and is downright insulting. I cannot believe that they chose to make this dogshit over another one with Ron Perlman and Del Toro. Almost every single aspect of this movie is garbage and there are hardly any redeeming features.
Let's talk about the main character, this movie's version of Hellboy. We all knew going in that David Harbour had some pretty big shoes to fill left by Perlman and in Harbour's defence, pretty much the only slightly positive aspect of this thing is the fact that you can tell that Harbour is doing the very best with the piss poor material he has been given to work with. Most of his lines are awful and the way that his character is written as a moaning, whiny bitch is actually insulting to the character. Also, the excessive makeup he is wearing means that he is hardly able to emote with his mouth. When he is talking, his mouth simply opens and closes like a puppet and it is painfully obvious that the dialogue has been dubbed in later and it's not even been done very well. The other slight positive in this movie is seeing Hellboy in his full demonic getup with long horns and donning the flaming crown and sword was pretty cool, unfortunately this is only a fleeting glimpse of coolness before we get right back to the crap.
The other memorable part of the Del Toro Hellboy movies was the endearing supporting cast, unfortunately they have been substituted with an insufferable lot of replacements. The actress playing Alice may give the worst performance that I have ever seen in a comic book movie, (and I saw Polar!) Every single line that she uttered was extremely cringe-worthy and poorly delivered. Daniel Dae Kim was almost as bad as Hellboy's other sidekick. Again, a lot of his lines were ADR'd in later and it is really shoddily done. Ian McShane plays Broom, the scientist that found Hellboy and adopted him and he is sleepwalking his way through this role for the sake of an easy paycheck. As is Milla Jovovich, she plays a stereotypical villainous witch and she does nothing here that we haven't seen her do before in other movies.
Over my years of watching almost every comic book movie that releases, I have seen my fair share of cheap, cartoony looking CGI, but this takes the cake. Almost every scene in the movie features some kind of CGI creature and they are all on a similar level of quality to an unfinished student project. One of the moments it really stood out was the giant fight, where we were subjected to not only one bad CGI giant, but three of them. The scene is also shot in broad daylight, which really does the bad CGI no favours. Not once, did anything in this movie look better than anything in the Del Toro movies which came out 10+ years ago.
I'm going to spoil something here, because seriously who gives a fuck at this point? The absolute worst part of CGI though in the entire movie, is undoubtedly during one of the final scenes in the movie where Ian McShane comes back to speak to Hellboy as a ghost. The CG in this scene is genuinely on par with the Rock's CG in in the Scorpion King. Yes, it really is that bad.
The soundtrack is so misused here also. The songs themselves that are featured are all half decent songs, but they do not work in the context of this film and they add absolutely nothing to the scenes that they are used in. The editing is also horrible, there were several times that I was reminded of the cheap editing in shows like Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
The last thing that I want to talk about is the tone and humour, (or lack of,) present throughout the film. The movie opens with a flashback scene showing King Arthur chopping up the witch. The scene is being narrated by Ian McShane and it is chock-full of diabolically awful dialogue and insufferably cheesy line delivery. Whilst watching it I thought, "Oh they are really hamming it up here and going for a really corny tone for these flashback scenes." I then swiftly came to the soul-crushing conclusion that no, this was how the next 2 hours of this movie was going to go. The awful sense of humour is actually comparable to that in a poor quality kids film, with gross out burp and kiss jokes to boot. What happened to the darker, more horror orientated tone that we were teased with when the movie was in pre-production? Any semblance of that is sorely lacking here and it is a shame because I would have quite liked to have seen that movie and there is a good chance that it would have been a lot better than this dumpster fire.
Overall, please don't see this unless you hate yourself. It is two hours of your life that would be better spent doing literally anything else. At the end it has the audacity to tease a sequel which, (if there is a God,) will never happen.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Dredd (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The mid 90’s was a strange time for movies. Sure, there were quite a few remembered fondly (just like with any era) but there were also many movies that are forgotten due to their ridiculousness. It was a time that gave us the style of adaptions on par with Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection, or the two Joel Schumacher Batman films. Likewise, there was a Judge Dredd film right in the middle of that time period.
It was a mess. It exemplified everything wrong with many adaptions in the 90’s. Big name actors, over-the-top designs, cheesy dialogue. It tried very hard to be akin to the original Total Recall but instead succeeded at only being a movie fun to laugh at. It featured Sylvester Stallone and Rob Schneider. That is all that needs to be said about that film. So, when Hollywood comes along and decides to make a new adaption, of course the original’s ridiculousness looms over the whole affair. Not helping is the fact that most of the cast and crew are relatively obscure, and its source material (the Judge Dredd comics) is not as well-known as most of Marvel’s or DC’s pantheon. Yet, this brand new adaption, Dredd 3D, soars much higher than the original and manages to be one of those well-hidden gems of Fall 2012. I don’t imagine this film breaking box office records, but it is a wholly worthwhile piece of screen entertainment, even if it has some notable flaws and is overshadowed by past outings in the franchise.
The future America is an irradiated waste land known as the Cursed Earth. On the east coast of North America lies Mega-City One, a vast, violent metropolis containing 800 million residents, where 17,000 crimes are reported daily and “Slo-Mo”, an addictive new drug that slows the user’s perception of time, has been introduced. The only force of order is the Judges, who act as police, judge, jury and executioner. Judge Dredd (Karl Urban) is tasked by the Chief Judge (Rakie Ayola) with evaluating rookie Judge Cassandra Anderson (Olivia Thirlby), a psychic who has failed the tests to become a full Judge. They become involved in a raid upon a crime and Slo-Mo ridden apartment complex known as Peach-Trees, which is ruled by a vicious crime boss Ma-Ma (Lena Heady).
You can guess from the title that the movie is meant to be watched in 3D. But that is where personal opinions of 3D come into play. For me personally, I cannot ding the film’s use of 3D because it uses it well enough that it becomes unnoticeable, which is to say it does not obnoxiously remind you at all times it is meant to be watched in 3D by throwing random things at the camera. But I will say that, although somewhat gimmicky, the “Slo-Mo” segments (which are shot from the perspective of those on the mind-altering drug ‘Slo-Mo’) do use 3D very well and manage to be some of the most visually striking and beautiful shots in the entire film.
The plot is simple to understand and straight forward. There are not huge twists and turns, and manages to be tightly written. It is not extremely memorable for plot standards, but it does not need to be. The story is held up by focusing on three major characters, which some good additional characterization of two more side characters. In that sense, the plot and characters do not pop off the screen into greatness, yet they are still tightly written enough that both elements (plot and characters) are not muddled or confusing. The simple plot, and the fact it all takes place in one apartment complex, makes it easier to focus on action and visuals.
While the visuals are all extremely well-done, the action could use some work. The setting of Mega-City One is extremely well established, as opposed to the original Judge Dredd adaption. It seems like it could be a real place not far off in the future, as it is set up with a realistic visual design – just with added grittiness and subtle science fictional elements. Also, there is not a huge amount of CG and the Judge uniforms especially look like iconic yet possibly realistic futuristic police suits. But the action could use some work, as stated. I could not help but constantly compare it to the recently released film, “The Raid: Redeption”, the Indonesian martial arts police film centering on a single police raid on an apartment complex. The similarities are there.
Both movies have very similar locations and plots, but the difference is that while Dredd has more interesting setting and science fiction elements (and arguably more interesting characters), The Raid: Redemption’s action is far more entertaining and engrossing. The real problem with Dredd is that there are never any real amazing feats of heroics on part of Judge Dredd. They set up the film in a sort of “’Die Hard’ in the future vibe” but that requires the hero to barely overcome overwhelming odds. As it stands, it never really feels like Judge Dredd is in a ton of danger. There are some cool shooting moments, and some even more interesting usage of Judge Anderson’s psychic powers. But at the end of the day, there simply are not many memorable action moments.
Overall, it does not ruin the film at all. It still manages to be an entertaining and interesting movie regardless of memorable action sequences. It has a tightly plotted narrative with fairly well done characters, not muddled by overuse of complexity or plot twists. It manages to be visually excellent with interesting science fictional elements, but never does it soar with its action set-pieces. It would have benefitted with some better use of gunplay or more clever feats of heroics on Judge Dredd’s part. But at least it takes itself seriously enough to not have anything akin to Rob Schneider following Sylvester Stallone around in a cheesy script.
It was a mess. It exemplified everything wrong with many adaptions in the 90’s. Big name actors, over-the-top designs, cheesy dialogue. It tried very hard to be akin to the original Total Recall but instead succeeded at only being a movie fun to laugh at. It featured Sylvester Stallone and Rob Schneider. That is all that needs to be said about that film. So, when Hollywood comes along and decides to make a new adaption, of course the original’s ridiculousness looms over the whole affair. Not helping is the fact that most of the cast and crew are relatively obscure, and its source material (the Judge Dredd comics) is not as well-known as most of Marvel’s or DC’s pantheon. Yet, this brand new adaption, Dredd 3D, soars much higher than the original and manages to be one of those well-hidden gems of Fall 2012. I don’t imagine this film breaking box office records, but it is a wholly worthwhile piece of screen entertainment, even if it has some notable flaws and is overshadowed by past outings in the franchise.
The future America is an irradiated waste land known as the Cursed Earth. On the east coast of North America lies Mega-City One, a vast, violent metropolis containing 800 million residents, where 17,000 crimes are reported daily and “Slo-Mo”, an addictive new drug that slows the user’s perception of time, has been introduced. The only force of order is the Judges, who act as police, judge, jury and executioner. Judge Dredd (Karl Urban) is tasked by the Chief Judge (Rakie Ayola) with evaluating rookie Judge Cassandra Anderson (Olivia Thirlby), a psychic who has failed the tests to become a full Judge. They become involved in a raid upon a crime and Slo-Mo ridden apartment complex known as Peach-Trees, which is ruled by a vicious crime boss Ma-Ma (Lena Heady).
You can guess from the title that the movie is meant to be watched in 3D. But that is where personal opinions of 3D come into play. For me personally, I cannot ding the film’s use of 3D because it uses it well enough that it becomes unnoticeable, which is to say it does not obnoxiously remind you at all times it is meant to be watched in 3D by throwing random things at the camera. But I will say that, although somewhat gimmicky, the “Slo-Mo” segments (which are shot from the perspective of those on the mind-altering drug ‘Slo-Mo’) do use 3D very well and manage to be some of the most visually striking and beautiful shots in the entire film.
The plot is simple to understand and straight forward. There are not huge twists and turns, and manages to be tightly written. It is not extremely memorable for plot standards, but it does not need to be. The story is held up by focusing on three major characters, which some good additional characterization of two more side characters. In that sense, the plot and characters do not pop off the screen into greatness, yet they are still tightly written enough that both elements (plot and characters) are not muddled or confusing. The simple plot, and the fact it all takes place in one apartment complex, makes it easier to focus on action and visuals.
While the visuals are all extremely well-done, the action could use some work. The setting of Mega-City One is extremely well established, as opposed to the original Judge Dredd adaption. It seems like it could be a real place not far off in the future, as it is set up with a realistic visual design – just with added grittiness and subtle science fictional elements. Also, there is not a huge amount of CG and the Judge uniforms especially look like iconic yet possibly realistic futuristic police suits. But the action could use some work, as stated. I could not help but constantly compare it to the recently released film, “The Raid: Redeption”, the Indonesian martial arts police film centering on a single police raid on an apartment complex. The similarities are there.
Both movies have very similar locations and plots, but the difference is that while Dredd has more interesting setting and science fiction elements (and arguably more interesting characters), The Raid: Redemption’s action is far more entertaining and engrossing. The real problem with Dredd is that there are never any real amazing feats of heroics on part of Judge Dredd. They set up the film in a sort of “’Die Hard’ in the future vibe” but that requires the hero to barely overcome overwhelming odds. As it stands, it never really feels like Judge Dredd is in a ton of danger. There are some cool shooting moments, and some even more interesting usage of Judge Anderson’s psychic powers. But at the end of the day, there simply are not many memorable action moments.
Overall, it does not ruin the film at all. It still manages to be an entertaining and interesting movie regardless of memorable action sequences. It has a tightly plotted narrative with fairly well done characters, not muddled by overuse of complexity or plot twists. It manages to be visually excellent with interesting science fictional elements, but never does it soar with its action set-pieces. It would have benefitted with some better use of gunplay or more clever feats of heroics on Judge Dredd’s part. But at least it takes itself seriously enough to not have anything akin to Rob Schneider following Sylvester Stallone around in a cheesy script.